-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No, ‘the Jews’ did not kill Jesus
- Thread starter pearl
- Start date
stanberger
Active Member
pharisees rabbis ' we killed Jesus son of Mary ' they confessed
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Simply put, the death penalty had to be approved by Rome. And the Jews wanted
the ROMAN METHOD of execution for Jesus, rather than traditional stoning.
So yes, the Jews DID put Jesus to death, through Roman agency.
Jesus was hung not stoned, the Roman way not the Jewish one.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Depends on which book you are reading.
Do you have a first century Pharisee source for that confession? (hint, seventh century polemical sources which may be strawmen don't count as confessions of relevant people).
In my opinion.
Definition of "Jewish decide:" The belief that all Jews, down through the generations, will be held responsible for killing Jesus (whether they did or did not consent to his crucifixion).
I am upset when I hear about Jewish school kids who are beaten for allegedly "killing Jesus."
Two recent popes said that it was a crowd of people (not Jews) who consented to the crucifixion of Jesus.
However, there are parts of the bible that say that Jews did ask for His crucifixion.
Acts 2:36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made thi8s Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah."
Acts 3:15 "You (Israelites) killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this."
Opinion of Clara Tea: Israelites could be anyone living in Israel (mostly Palestinians, at that time, and the Palestinians were in charge).
Matthew 27:24-25: "He (Pilate) toook water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying , "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves." And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children."
Opinion of Clara Tea: Romans had huge numbers of crucified bodies hanging by the roads, and I suspect that it was normal procedure to ask crowds if they should kill. I suppose that if the crowd objected, they'd be next (and their whole families murdered). It was plausible deniability (made so famous during the Bush administration in the United States during the Iran Contra scandal--blame Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, not the real perpetrators at the top). There is no doubt that the orders to murder Jesus came from Caesar (ruler of Rome).
Well, if they did, you should thank them. It would be suboptimal to have sin and still no cure from it.
Ciao
- viole
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Indeed. Crucifixion was was reserved by the Romans for crimes against the empire. Basically, he was a revolutionary.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
No, the Jews REQUESTED crucifixion for Jesus because they hated him.
The penalty for 'heresy' was stoning.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
We will never know the exact details, but he was most likely arrested and executed by the Romans for sedition or something like that. A lot of the stuff in the Bible was made up long after the event, in order to promote a specific narrative.
Even though the crucifixion was ordered and carried out by Roman authority, the narrative nonetheless paints the local Jewish leadership as the instigators of it.
That does not justify antisemitism or the absurd charge that all Jews everywhere are for all time culpable for an unjust execution. But I do not see reason in pretending the Gospel texts do not say what they clearly do say. Which is that the local Jewish leadership wanted Jesus dead; so they riled up the mob and successfully pressured Pilate into acquiescing to their demand that Jesus be crucified.
That does not justify antisemitism or the absurd charge that all Jews everywhere are for all time culpable for an unjust execution. But I do not see reason in pretending the Gospel texts do not say what they clearly do say. Which is that the local Jewish leadership wanted Jesus dead; so they riled up the mob and successfully pressured Pilate into acquiescing to their demand that Jesus be crucified.
Yes, but, this crowd would have been made up of Jews from outside Jerusalem gathered for the Passover, many of whom never heard of Jesus.
Passover in Jerusalem could be a volatile time. Thousands of Jewish pilgrims streamed to Jerusalem from all over the Mediterranean world to celebrate the festival of freedom from foreign domination, but upon arriving they would see many signs of Roman supremacy. The first-century writer Flavius Josephus tells of the regular Roman practice of stationing troops to maintain public order in the Temple precincts (Jewish Wars, 2.12.1). The inflamed mood of the Jewish populace at Passover probably explains why Pilate was in Jerusalem, instead of at his headquarters in Caesarea Maritima, when Jesus entered the city. If, as the synoptic Gospels relate, Jesus caused a disturbance in the Temple after his arrival, this would certainly alarm both Jewish and Roman authorities: a Galilean troublemaker might be planning to start a Passover riot. Pilate would want to keep the peace. So would Caiaphas, who could reasonably fear that violence could lead to the destruction of the Temple, as indeed eventually occurred (see John 11:48-50).
And a troublemaking prophet for both Jewish and Roman authorities.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The fault should be blamed on law, which is connected to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Jesus, who was a Jew through his mother, Mary, taught a new doctrine of love and faith that applied to all people and not just the Jews. This new doctrine was against the Old Testament Jewish Law. Jesus was claiming he was the Son of God and the Messiah, which were mortal sins in the eyes of the Jewish law.
What Jesus taught was not against Roman Law. Rome had a policy of allowing its conquered countries to retain traditions; cultural and religious freedom. Rome was not insecure in that sense, and they found it easier to manage their vast empire of cultures this way, since it showed compassion for deeply felt beliefs; states rights, but with Federal controls. If they needed armies they were easier to raise.
The law that Jesus broke, that got this all going, was Jewish law, which the Jewish leaders felt, qualified as heresy. The wage of this terrible sin was death. The Jewish leaders became the judge and jury based on their scholarly knowledge of their law. However, they could not act, since this would be against Roman Law; cause internal problems. They pressured Pilot to take acton on their behalf, since Rome did not allow internal squabbles and Civil Wars.
Rome, as represented by Pilot, saw nothing wrong in the original legal picture, in terms of Roman law. However, his job, as a Roman Governor and Roman Bureaucrat was to maintain peace and order. Pilot went along to appease the noisiest crowd, so he could end the instability, less he be thought to be incompetent and replaced. Pilot was looking out for his own career and did not wish to violate the Roman laws of empire Bureaucracy.
Since all forms of law began with Satan in the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Satan and those who worshiped him, via laws of right and wrong, were all responsible. Sin and punishment would not have been imputed to Jesus, if there had been no law against Jesus's free speech teachings. But instead of free speech and debate, these legal system set up legal censorship, by self serving truth detectors, based on their own self interests; Democrats Party rules and Twitter censorship to kill accounts.
The analogy is, say it was deemed to be against the law to be a witch. The self righteous may decide it is good to round up, torture and even kill those accused of being witches. They are doing good by their law by rounding up this terrible evil. However, none off this is an objective good, since their law is subjective and self serving. Law is too easy to twist and distort for personal gain. Every evil dictator will use laws designed to maintain their power.
There is no such things as fairly tale witches, but a law was created based on imaginary enemies that need to be stopped. This law then justifies cruel behavior by the mob, since if you do not act, you will be charged with condoning witchery and then pursued as a minion of the fairy tale witches. This would happened to the followers of Jesus. Their peaceful protests against the objective cruelty, after the fact, caused Roman law of order to be broken, so they now had to be rounded up.
Hitler, in WWII, would use law against the Jews. Before Hitler was fully in power, he had sent lawyers to the USA to learn from the American Democrat party; south will rise again, how to make and use law to create an entire race of second class citizens; blacks, with limited rights.
When these Lawyers, returned to Germany, it became unlawful to be a Jew; witch and bogeyman. This was subjective law, but it was still the law, since it was strictly enforced by those in power with all the might. People had to go along, to get along, to avoid the foot of the law stomping on them. Law is easily is often misused and causes so much death and pain. This is why Jesus went after law, and did away with law of all types. The righteous man needed to live by faith apart from law; unique judgement for any situation instead of one size fits all.
When Jesus was killed and resurrected, this tragedy had been part of a larger master strategy. The ultimate penalty for breaking the strongest of laws; subjective or objective, is the death penalty. Once you are dead, you can no longer break any laws, since you are dead and not animated to do anything. Death separates one from law and all its requirements.
When Jesus died and was resurrected he came back as someone who was now outside the law; double jeopardy. The resurrection, which which nobody expected, created as loophole that neutralized law at the level of heaven. This loophole would lead to a war in heaven where Satan and his followers; 1/3 of the angels, were expelled; Revelations, with Jesus taking over Satan's heavenly job as a mediator to humans, at the right hand of God. Law would no longer be condoned by God.
However, with Satan driven to the Earth and not condoned by heaven, as had been the case in the Old Testament, Satan and man, via law, would bump up their cruelty, via law. One complaint by the Atheists, about the Catholic Church, is based on the laws that would be imposed over the centuries. Law does not have to be rational to create social dynamics that can lead to death and suffering. law was still thought to be divine and from God, even though Satan no longer in Heaven, sold as the divine rights of kings; laws of man.
What Jesus taught was not against Roman Law. Rome had a policy of allowing its conquered countries to retain traditions; cultural and religious freedom. Rome was not insecure in that sense, and they found it easier to manage their vast empire of cultures this way, since it showed compassion for deeply felt beliefs; states rights, but with Federal controls. If they needed armies they were easier to raise.
The law that Jesus broke, that got this all going, was Jewish law, which the Jewish leaders felt, qualified as heresy. The wage of this terrible sin was death. The Jewish leaders became the judge and jury based on their scholarly knowledge of their law. However, they could not act, since this would be against Roman Law; cause internal problems. They pressured Pilot to take acton on their behalf, since Rome did not allow internal squabbles and Civil Wars.
Rome, as represented by Pilot, saw nothing wrong in the original legal picture, in terms of Roman law. However, his job, as a Roman Governor and Roman Bureaucrat was to maintain peace and order. Pilot went along to appease the noisiest crowd, so he could end the instability, less he be thought to be incompetent and replaced. Pilot was looking out for his own career and did not wish to violate the Roman laws of empire Bureaucracy.
Since all forms of law began with Satan in the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Satan and those who worshiped him, via laws of right and wrong, were all responsible. Sin and punishment would not have been imputed to Jesus, if there had been no law against Jesus's free speech teachings. But instead of free speech and debate, these legal system set up legal censorship, by self serving truth detectors, based on their own self interests; Democrats Party rules and Twitter censorship to kill accounts.
The analogy is, say it was deemed to be against the law to be a witch. The self righteous may decide it is good to round up, torture and even kill those accused of being witches. They are doing good by their law by rounding up this terrible evil. However, none off this is an objective good, since their law is subjective and self serving. Law is too easy to twist and distort for personal gain. Every evil dictator will use laws designed to maintain their power.
There is no such things as fairly tale witches, but a law was created based on imaginary enemies that need to be stopped. This law then justifies cruel behavior by the mob, since if you do not act, you will be charged with condoning witchery and then pursued as a minion of the fairy tale witches. This would happened to the followers of Jesus. Their peaceful protests against the objective cruelty, after the fact, caused Roman law of order to be broken, so they now had to be rounded up.
Hitler, in WWII, would use law against the Jews. Before Hitler was fully in power, he had sent lawyers to the USA to learn from the American Democrat party; south will rise again, how to make and use law to create an entire race of second class citizens; blacks, with limited rights.
When these Lawyers, returned to Germany, it became unlawful to be a Jew; witch and bogeyman. This was subjective law, but it was still the law, since it was strictly enforced by those in power with all the might. People had to go along, to get along, to avoid the foot of the law stomping on them. Law is easily is often misused and causes so much death and pain. This is why Jesus went after law, and did away with law of all types. The righteous man needed to live by faith apart from law; unique judgement for any situation instead of one size fits all.
When Jesus was killed and resurrected, this tragedy had been part of a larger master strategy. The ultimate penalty for breaking the strongest of laws; subjective or objective, is the death penalty. Once you are dead, you can no longer break any laws, since you are dead and not animated to do anything. Death separates one from law and all its requirements.
When Jesus died and was resurrected he came back as someone who was now outside the law; double jeopardy. The resurrection, which which nobody expected, created as loophole that neutralized law at the level of heaven. This loophole would lead to a war in heaven where Satan and his followers; 1/3 of the angels, were expelled; Revelations, with Jesus taking over Satan's heavenly job as a mediator to humans, at the right hand of God. Law would no longer be condoned by God.
However, with Satan driven to the Earth and not condoned by heaven, as had been the case in the Old Testament, Satan and man, via law, would bump up their cruelty, via law. One complaint by the Atheists, about the Catholic Church, is based on the laws that would be imposed over the centuries. Law does not have to be rational to create social dynamics that can lead to death and suffering. law was still thought to be divine and from God, even though Satan no longer in Heaven, sold as the divine rights of kings; laws of man.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
Do you believe the New Testament narrative of the Jewish role in the death of Jesus?
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
Paul, who was a Jew, and had been a Pharisee, speaks of these matters in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16. He says, 'Who [the Jews] both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.'
Peter, after Pentecost, said to the Jewish crowd, 'Him [Jesus Christ], being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:' [Acts 2:23]
According to Mark's Gospel [Mark 14:64], the High Priest at Jesus' trial said, 'ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death'.
['with him [the high priest] were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes']
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The answer is yes and no. The entire event was connected to law. Jesus was in violation of the Old Testament Laws in the eyes of the Jewish leaders. However, Israel was also under Roman rule and they did not wish to have Rome come down on them for violating Roman Civil Law. The Jews needed to come to Pilot to get his permission. Pilot had his own laws to deal with, some of which applied to his own career ambitions. So he took a middle path of maintaining Roman peace, while giving the Jews say in the outcome; diplomatic position designed to satisfy all sides.
If the Jews had a different set of laws, the outcome would have been different. But their law forces them to take a given path or they will be in violation of the same law. Nobody wishes to be exposed and punished as lawless; based on subjective law, even if you know you are doing good based on all measures of objective criteria; innocent man.
With racism, for example, one is required to hate the other race since this is defined by the subjective law as good. To do the right thing in terms of objective human rights, you will become an enemy of the law abiding mob, who will think they are doing good enforcing, the evil that is allowed by the law. Fear of death; both objective and subjective, makes people follow the herd for safety, so bad law prospers and bad decisions are made.
Law is connected to Satan and the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was not God's first choice. He tries to avoid this choice but once made, humans would suffer from subjective law. It would even be used by man to kill the son of God.
It is just not that simple as the Narrative was penned decades after the event. And each author had his own purpose, addressing the needs of his community.
Differences in the arrest of Jesus;
[15] In Mark's Gospel, Jesus prays three times for "this cup to pass me by," but he will do his father's will. Three times he returns to a group of his disciples and finds they cannot keep awake. When arrestors arrive, someone draws a sword and slices off an ear of someone in the arresting party. Mark is very blunt, "All of them abandoned him and fled" (14:50). In Mark's Gospel, Jesus is left utterly alone.
Mark's point would seem to be that just as the disciples dropped everything when they first followed Jesus, so now when danger appears, they drop everything because they cannot get away from him quickly enough. Their faith is shallow.
In Luke's account Jesus prays for the cup to pass him by only once. "When he got up from prayer, he came to the disciples and found them sleeping because of grief". If Luke had a version of Mark as most scholars think, then he clearly has toned down the negative Marcan portrayal of the disciples.
In John Roman soldiers are in the arresting party, for instance. Most importantly, there is no prayer of Jesus wishing that his imminent suffering could be avoided:
Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, "Whom are you looking for?" They answered, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus replied, "I am he." . . . When Jesus said to them, "I am he," they stepped back and fell to the ground. Again he asked them, "Whom are you looking for?" And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus answered, "I told you that I am he" (18:4-7).
In the Gospel of John, Jesus is in total control of every scene. He knows what is going to happen. This is because this writer stresses Jesus' divine status. That is why when he says, "I AM," recalling the holy name revealed to Moses in the burning bush, his arrestors all swoon in his divine presence. This would surely be a difficult scene to dramatize without making the arrestors seem clownish. Peter cuts off the servant's ear, Jesus says, "Put your sword back into its sheath. Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?" (18:11). Not only is there no prayer of avoidance in John, but the image of "the cup" is here treated as something that Jesus would drink without question or hesitation: "There is no question that I am going to drink the cup the Father has given me!" This is because of the writer's stress on Jesus as divine and in total control.
A unique aspect of John's account is that Pilate shuttles inside and outside the praetorium, reflecting his inner confusion. As part of his perplexity, Pilate orders Jesus scourged in a futile effort to release him. This is the only Gospel to posit this reason for the scourging. In the synoptics, scourging is simply part of the Roman crucifixion process.